Should civilized nations use "Enhanced Interrogation" techni

[kandrathe]

Funny, I would have expected that having the biggest military spending, the biggest fleet, the largest army, and the availability of even nuclear weapons would help to win wars. I thought that crossing legal and moral lines are things that (civilized) nations would only do as a last resort, like when faced by extinction by a superior enemy, for example.

Then, you don't understand terrorism. It is a method for an unstructured, minority of fanatics to hold even a super powers attention. Actually, the IRA is probably the best example of how to do it correctly. The history of middle eastern terror has been less coordinated and less sustained. All the might of the US military won't help figure out what dank cave in Pakistan OBL is hiding in, or who are his accomplices. Without that knowledge all the armies, navies, air power and nuclear weapons would only succeed in turning 150 million Muslims of the world into enemies. And, if you do have that knowledge, you really only need a appropriately sized commando squad anyway.

Btw, who is Joshua and what is a MF?

He wants to play the game, and Samuel L. Jackson is a big, bad, cool MF, who frequently says things like, "I want these MF snakes off the MF plane!." I kind of view the movie as an allegory, where Mr. Jackson is the USA, the passengers are the other nations of the world, and the snakes are the various terrorists and bad guys.

And... I hope you know that my tongue was firmly implanted in my cheek. :lol:

[--Pete]

Hi,

It seems that you, Pete and Kandrathe often get angry just because your discussion oponent (Zenda) is a non-US citizen.

A number of us, including Jester who is usually on your side of these arguments, explained why we consider Zenda (and, usually you too) to be a troll. Search for 'strawman' on this thread. It may be that you do it intentionally, if so you should be banned. It may be you do it from stupidity, if so you have my pity. It may be you do it from difficulty understanding English, if so you should either improve your English or find a forum that is in a language more familiar to you.

Personally, I'm tired of idiots, be they real or playing the part.

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

Well probably you think it does. You continue to look at things from one side.

But you don't, right?

Pardon me while I piss myself laughing.

As to what you'd rather Iran do ... they don't give a flying crap what you think. I at least give you the courtesy of reading your posts. Whomever is in charge of Iran will do what is Iran's best interests, based on their view of Iran and the future. The difficult thing is to find ways to influence them to see the future as you (or I) see it.

Spouting platitudes doesn't sell.

Occhi

[Zenda]

just because your discussion oponent (Zenda) is a non-US citizen.

Thanks for stepping up, Eppie, but you should know that these arguments between Pete and me did not start in political discussions. It goes back to the old DSF at Blizzard, where I sometimes questioned his method of correcting other posters on the forum.

I think it is a valid option.

I think it is not. If an assassination team has enough proof to be sure of their target, they can present this target to a open and fair courtroom, along with the evidence (and ask for a death penalty, if they want).

[Zenda]

Then, you don't understand terrorism.

Terrorism? Wasn't 'Apocalypse now' about the Vietnam war?;)

I kind of view the movie as an allegory, where Mr. Jackson is the USA, the passengers are the other nations of the world, and the snakes are the various terrorists and bad guys.

That's what I had in mind, too. Still, lowering the temperature would have worked.:)

[--Pete]

Hi,

If an assassination team has enough proof to be sure of their target, they can present this target to a open and fair courtroom, along with the evidence (and ask for a death penalty, if they want).

Right. OBL for example. Which court do they present their case in? How do you extradite him from, say, Afghanistan? Who actually carries out the punishment?

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Thanks for stepping up, Eppie, but you should know that these arguments between Pete and me did not start in political discussions. It goes back to the old DSF at Blizzard, where I sometimes questioned his method of correcting other posters on the forum.

But not under the name Zenda I bet, since I only remember that from the past few years. So, you change your name, leave out all profile information and hide behind the anonymity of the net. Should have just called yourself Anonymous Coward -- emphasis on the 'coward' -- but that too would have been too honest, wouldn't it?

As to the DSF, there were many who took the side of trolls and fools. They would have preferred a cesspool like Ogden's. Felt more at home, you see.

If you are who I think you are, then you took a long break -- that was good. You came back -- that was bad. And you've got some gall posting on any board associated with Bolty. But perhaps you're a different fish entirely.

Whatever. Apparently I had a low opinion of you ten years ago. Proves again that I'm often right.

--Pete

[eppie]

Hi,
A number of us, including Jester who is usually on your side of these arguments, explained why we consider Zenda (and, usually you too) to be a troll. Search for 'strawman' on this thread. It may be that you do it intentionally, if so you should be banned. It may be you do it from stupidity, if so you have my pity. It may be you do it from difficulty understanding English, if so you should either improve your English or find a forum that is in a language more familiar to you.

Personally, I'm tired of idiots, be they real or playing the part.

--Pete

So you think there is this guy that as some kind of hobby writes long posts just to piss you off and get reactions? If you think that you should not reply him (or me) in the first place.

I have read the strawman remarks, read back and you'll see I even replied on those posts. I think the strawman definition can be use for sure for you three. But as I said, people tend to look at things from their own side and don't realize being a strawman themselves.

We all get back here for discussions so it might just be better to stop calling people trolls (or worse, Occhi) now and then.

[--Pete]

So you think there is this guy that as some kind of hobby writes long posts just to piss you off and get reactions?

Look up troll.

If you think that you should not reply him (or me) in the first place.

You're right. I should not feed trolls.

I think the strawman definition can be use for sure for you three. But as I said, people tend to look at things from their own side and don't realize being a strawman themselves.

"Stawman" is a type of argument, not a type of person.

We all get back here for discussions so it might just be better to stop calling people trolls (or worse, Occhi) now and then.

Then stop trolling.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

So you think there is this guy that as some kind of hobby writes long posts just to piss you off and get reactions? If you think that you should not reply him (or me) in the first place.

There are trolls who create posts which are inflammatory, then there are trolls who respond to messages trying to steer the topic into inflammatory directions.

I have read the strawman remarks, read back and you'll see I even replied on those posts. I think the strawman definition can be use for sure for you three. But as I said, people tend to look at things from their own side and don't realize being a strawman themselves.

Just to what Pete said about Strawman... If you instead meant that we were "trolling", then you are mistaken. Speaking for myself, when I decide to post something I always attempt to pose it as a commentary on something socially relevant. The difficult part is to choose topics that are interesting, yet not hot button. For example, while Susan Boyle's second place finish on BGT is not a hot button issue, it also is a very boring topic. The recent slaying of an abortion doctor while in a church in Wichita is socially relevant, but too hot button. Something worthy of discussion from the news today might be North Korea positioning (theoretically nuclear tipped) missiles to attack Alaska.

We all get back here for discussions so it might just be better to stop calling people trolls (or worse, Occhi) now and then.

People here are policed by the community, so if Zenda wants to play in the sandbox he should get used to being poked by the participants once in a while (or having the occasional shovel tossed at him).

The quality of the discussion can be enhanced as people learn how to disagree in an agreeable fashion. Mostly what I find frustrating about the "Strawman" argument is that if you respond to it you must redirect the discussion back on topic. Here is an example from this topic which was a blatant "troll"; <blockquote>"Nevermind me, though, for questioning your right to murder, torture or imprison anyone in the world who you claim would possibly do those same things, given enough time and/or resources :whistling:"</blockquote>There is no basis in me ever making that claim, so this is a troll, which I ignored.

[weakwarrior]

[tangent]

It's funny. Looking at your pic, (ass/u/ming that's your pic), you look surprisingly like a chemistry teacher I once had, who taught me that phrase. He hated me, and I hated him. I thought he was a pompous ass, and he thought I "lacked academic maturity." I've since come to appreciate that he was pretty good teacher, although not a good fit for me. I doubt he has since come to appreciate anything about me, although it's clear I'm a heck of a lot more academic than he ever thought. (Mature, maybe not.)

Just thought it was an interesting coincidence.
[/tangent]

-Jester

I´ve had the same thought. Pete´s picture looks exactly like a professor at my undergraduate institution. If it weren´t ackward I would have even asked outright. I never had him as a teacher, but everyone who did said he was excellent. He was also an associate dean. I had him as that. He was real know-it-all and I hated having to interact with him in that way. I did hear a rumor that he had previously left Yale amidst allegations of improper conduct with a female student, but who knows.:)

[Zenda]

But not under the name Zenda I bet, since I only remember that from the past few years.

You tie a lot of assumptions to something you don't remember. Let me add a hint to refresh your memory.

When those 'who took the side of trolls and fools' threatened to complain to Blizzard I argued against it, reasoning that too much negative attention might cause them to close the DSF prematurely. My efforts were in vain.

[Zenda]

The recent slaying of an abortion doctor while in a church in Wichita is socially relevant, but too hot button.

Hot button? Why would a murder like this be controversial? The victim's work might have been, and some of the reactions given to this tragic event, but not his death.

Something worthy of discussion from the news today might be North Korea positioning (theoretically nuclear tipped) missiles to attack Alaska.

Tongue in cheek? If not, I wonder why we need interrogation techniques at all when things like this can be found in the news;)

"Nevermind me, though, for questioning your right to murder, torture or imprison anyone in the world who you claim would possibly do those same things, given enough time and/or resources"

One day perhaps, you may realize how many truths were in that remark.

[Zenda]

People here are policed by the community, so if Zenda wants to play in the sandbox he should get used to being poked by the participants once in a while (or having the occasional shovel tossed at him).

Oh, that's allright. I'm not the one who is complaining. It's like Mirajj described it in the old Diablo Strategy Forum Etiquette:

"The thing with Reg's is that they each have their own personalities. Yes, they are human, too! All people have personalities, and Reg's come out in their writings. Don't be offended by what they write. Some answer with sarcasm, some with obscure and verbose percolations of their current stream of conciousness, it seems."

Or maybe I got it wrong, and that was about me (too). It doesn't make a difference;)

[kandrathe]

Hot button? Why would a murder like this be controversial? The victim's work might have been, and some of the reactions given to this tragic event, but not his death.

In the interest of harmony, it is best to avoid some topics altogether (abortion, same sex marriage, cheating in games, etc.)

Tongue in cheek? If not, I wonder why we need interrogation techniques at all when things like this can be found in the news;)

There are external problems and there are internal problems. Dropping a couple skyscrapers in the heart of one of the worlds major financial sectors is pretty disrupting, and also calls for some level of homeland defense.

There was another story that caught my eye relating to 8 or so male military police who are in trouble for covertly snapping photographs of their female counterparts in the shower. What struck me was (in thinking of Abu Garib or Gitmo) they victimized their colleagues and not "slime ball terrorists". These are military police, not straight from boot camp wet behind the ears recruits. If a bunch of "so called" professional military policemen will do such a thing to their colleagues, what would they do to "outsiders", or to "enemies"? Human nature is pretty consistent, so when it comes to establishing one group of people over another group of people, I believe that only when the highest scrutiny by their superiors is applied will victimization not occur. In fact, I've also heard that during the Iraq War part I and the Iraq War part II the incidence of rape was a big problem in the forces. I don't want to portray US soldiers in a negative light, since 99.9% of them are straight up heroes, but there are always bad apples who need to get some discipline or some prison depending on their violation.

One day perhaps, you may realize how many truths were in that remark.

Tell me when you finish writing your compilation of Zenda Koans. Until then I will need to rely on my own wisdom.

[Occhidiangela]

@ Pete

I have not forgotten that three part question from a few pages back. Trouble is, the answers are not simple, nor easy, and I'd rather give a quality answer. Last three weeks of me reading some new info (to me) on the topic has reconfirmed something I suspected from the get to, in terms of post OEF and pre OIF.

The 2004 election was part of "why now" for Iraq. The stalling of the 9-11 commission was also informed by the 2004 election. The attacks were as much a threat to Bush and his lads for internal political reasons "you sat there and didn't do enough" as there were in any other sense. Or so one line of reasoning goes.

Richard Clarke's commentary on Cheney and Rice's latest defense of their choices had a small nugget that jumped out at me.

So, regarding "what should our goals be" and "what should our methods be" I have to answer with

Originally

and

Considering the current board as the pieces are arranged.

will do so, but I need to get a few things off my plate first.

Occhi

[Zenda]

Human nature is pretty consistent, so when it comes to establishing one group of people over another group of people, I believe that only when the highest scrutiny by their superiors is applied will victimization not occur.

People are not always that bad, but I have to agree that war or other comparable circumstances can make them look really ugly. In fact, that is one of my motivations to oppose all kinds of torture. If you allow only 'harmless' things, it will cost a lot of effort to control and it will still get out of hand somewhere, sooner or later. If you allow nothing of the kind, everything is much easier.

As an example how a 'reasonable' interrogation technique can turn into sadistic cruelty in the blink of an eye, even when not under the pressure of war, I found the following lecture on torture techniques, by Dr. Larry Forness of the American Military University. It sounds almost too absurd to be true, imo, but the site appears reliable and the background information is correct. Students generally refer to this man as a good teacher and a helpful person.

At one point, the writer makes a pretty convincing case to use scopolamine, explaining that it keeps a subject from recognizing the interrogator as enemy. But then it continues as follows...

"To use scopolamine most effectively to get a prisoner to tell you what he or she knows, the key is where you inject it, and in what amounts. Normally it is introduced into the body by a transdermal patch or intravenously in the arm. However, if you inject it into the spine (amount classified), it causes absolutely incredible pain, accompanied by violent convulsions and seizures. If injected into the spine in the appropriate amount, more than 95% of all prisoners will tell the truth -- not something fabricated to stop the pain -- within 24 hours (Source: classified)."

[Thecla]

Human nature is pretty consistent, so when it comes to establishing one group of people over another group of people, I believe that only when the highest scrutiny by their superiors is applied will victimization not occur.

Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, as I certainly do not want to put words in your mouth, but from this and several of your other comments (e.g. the "Bush administration was unclear") it seems to me you incline toward the "bad apple" theory of abuse in the US military's treatment of prisoners.

I'll just repeat that this simply isn't credible. The worst excesses (like Abu Ghraib, or the two prisioners in Bagram who were suspended from a ceiling by their wrists --- one of the more "effective stress positions" I dare say --- and beaten to death in 2002) may not have been intended, but they all involve the same set of interrogation techniques pushed down the chain of command from the highest levels. Far from applying the highest scrutiny, it seems quite the opposite: that the superiors in military intelligence were pressuring their subordinates to "get results" and use highly "aggressive" methods, of dubious legality, with very little clear direction.

Of course random victimization will always occur. But that's not the explanation here---the wide-spread abuse, and in some cases torture, of prisoners by the US was the result of policy decisions by the Bush administration.

[kandrathe]

In fact, that is one of my motivations to oppose all kinds of torture.

But, previously in this post you defined torture as making someone in your charge do something against their will. By your definition, I torture my children every night when I make them go to bed. And, let's not even talk about bath time.

In a prison scenario, let's say a prisoner refuses to return to their cell. Would forcing them back into their cell be torture? I don't think you've thought "what is torture" through very well.

Regarding scopolamine... I suspect your Wikileak(propaganda) might be a fake, but it does have enough information to feed the suckers in the liberazzi blogs and feed the outrage of the jihadis. If it was one of his lectures, then it was pretty irresponsible for a man who belongs to the "Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology". I haven't found anywhere that it has been clearly deemed a fake, but I still might.

Here are some questions you might clear up about the "leak"; Why would a physician and dean of a college misspell, "Sodium Pentathal" and why would he not use the chemical name sodium thiopental? How many pigs did they keep at Camp Delta? Why would a man who lectures the military screw up the levels of "Secret", as there is no such designation "Beyond Top Secret"? If this is a lecture, why would the text of his speech say "As you read this..."? Again, the story of Pershing is an urban legend, then why would renowned researcher not corroborate before teaching something that is probably false. Also, when the CIA and the DOD have APA certified psychologists working for them, like R. Scott Shumate, why would they turn to a former Marine, and a guy who is a specialist in sports medicine for lectures on torture techniques? So, if anything is true in that leak, the lecture was at most some kind of pomp and swagger for his Tae Kwon Do class. The drugs listed are the same ones mentioned in Bond films, so don't you think we've maybe progressed to some new cocktail of chemicals since the 1970's? Wouldn't he have mentioned temazepam or cisatracurium ?

According to Harris Literary, "Dr. Forness is currently a Dean of a major health care university in the southeastern United States, as well as serving as adjunct faculty at three other health care universities." He wrote, "Don't Get Duped - A Consumer's Guide to Health and Fitness".

Here is his bio at American Military University, where he teaches some courses related to sports medicine.

[kandrathe]

Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, as I certainly do not want to put words in your mouth, but from this and several of your other comments (e.g. the "Bush administration was unclear") it seems to me you incline toward the "bad apple" theory of abuse in the US military's treatment of prisoners.

I think there were some "bad apples", and I think the administration painted the grey area about as far as you can go without being definitely illegal. I think in the years from 2001 to 2004, the impetus to prevent further damage and the suspicion that "anything" might be possible prompted some extreme measures. But, also, in response to the gist of what you are saying, I'm specifically thinking of the Stanford Prison Experiment. "What happens when you put good people in an evil place? Does humanity win over evil, or does evil triumph?"

Of course random victimization will always occur. But that's not the explanation here---the wide-spread abuse, and in some cases torture, of prisoners by the US was the result of policy decisions by the Bush administration.

Again, I somewhat agree, but as Pete has indicated, one mans torture is another mans cold shower. As I told Jester before, some of the things I've done to myself would probably have me committed as certifiably insane. Things like the Polar Bear Plunge or using snow wedges for TP while winter camping at -17F. Also, allegations are hard to believe sometimes, when there have been claims of abuse ranging from "denying the prisoners a Koran" to the most gawd awful stuff you wouldn't think could happen in the most awful Turkish prison hell hole. Even the link to the letter previously in this post, where the terrorist was almost more concerned about having a women present than most anything else that happened to him. It makes me wonder if perhaps some of the allegations might be tall tales either for propaganda purposes, or as vengeance for being detained.

Personally, for some of them, after they've been humanely interrogated, they should just threaten to let them loose in the general prison population of any US federal prison. If you think the torturers were harsh, you've no idea what happens in a federal prison. I'd talk, no, actually, I'd spill my guts until they allowed me to be locked up in some other more sympathetic population of prisoners.